About Me

Jim Killebrew has 40 years of clinical psychological work for people with intellectual disabilities, and experience teaching, administration, consulting, writing with multiple publications. Dr. Killebrew has attended four Universities and received advanced degrees. Southern Illinois University; Ph.D., Educational Psychology; University of Illinois at Springfield, Counseling Education; M.A., Human Development Counseling; Northeastern Oklahoma State University, B.A., Psychology and Sociology. Dr. Killebrew attended Lincoln Christian Seminary (Now Lincoln Christian University). Writing contributions have been accepted and published in several journals: Hospital & Community Psychiatry, The Lookout, and Christian Standard (multiple articles). He may be reached at Killebrewjb@aol.com.

Welcome to my Opinion Pages

Thanks for stopping by and reading some of my thoughts. I hope you will find an enjoyable adventure here on my pages.

The articles are only my opinion and are never meant to hurt anyone nor to downgrade any other person's ideas or opinions.

Scroll through the page and stop to read any of the articles you wish. If you like what you see leave a comment, then tell someone where they can find this site. If you don't like what you read then leave a comment reflecting your thoughts and I will read them when I visit the site from time to time.

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

"So, if you died tonight, would you go to heaven?" That was a question I asked my friend.

His response: "Of course, God has too much grace to leave me behind."

I continued, "But you are living like you don't even believe in God. You drink a lot, you never attend any church service, and I have never known you to pray."

After a bit of silence, my friend said, "Yeah, but God doesn't expect us to live some kind of 'holier than thou' kind of life. He expects us to enjoy life and have fun." "Besides," he continued, "I don't do anything really bad; I've never killed anyone, I don't rob banks or liquor stores." "In fact," he went on, "I am better than a lot of people I know."

"That may be true," I responded, "but are you better than Jesus?" "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus?"

He lowered his head, shuffled his feet and seemed a bit embarrassed, and said, "You know I don't talk about all that religious stuff like Jesus and angels and sheep; I am just part of the whole outdoors. I can worship in the woods while I hunt for deer, or at the lake where I can fish for my dinner."

"But," I started to say.

"No," he interjected, "you believe all that stuff about God and Jesus, but I'm not sure I believe all of it." "I mean after all, who says that there is a heaven, or a hell for that matter?"

Silence hung for a minute or two and he raised his head and looked at me square in the eyes and said, "Do you believe all that?"

"Yes," I whispered. I told him I believed in God the Creator and told him the account recorded in the Bible about God and the fall of mankind, Adam and Eve. I then went through some of the Scriptures that foretold about the coming of the Christ, how Abraham was chosen by God to form a nation. About the nation of Israel being God's nation through which the Son of God would be born. We reviewed the Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to read about the birth of Jesus and His working on this earth.

I then said to my friend, "It really does make a difference to me. My life is built on the foundation that God is real, He has communicated with me through His Word, the Bible, and He has said to me that to be with Him forever I need to have faith in Him, submit to Him and take Jesus as my Lord and Savior."

Finally, I said to my friend, "What if I die tonight and on the other side of this life there is absolutely nothing. I am gone completely, death is absolute and there is no hereafter. Then it really didn't make any difference what I believed, I would not be facing anyone, I would be dead."

"Yeah," he said, "so then what was the difference?"

"Suppose on the other hand," I continued, "You die tomorrow and what you believe about death being the end is not really true, in fact at that moment you find out God is waiting for you on the other side, and everything the Bible says is true." "Will it make a difference to you as you stand in judgment in front of God's Throne?"

"So how do I defend myself?" he asked.

"You don't; there is no way to defend yourself, if you are covered with sin you are guilty." "You pay the price of sin, and that price is eternal separation from God in a place of eternal torment."

"However," I continued, "In the same situation I will not have to defend myself because I have yielded to Jesus and He has become my Advocate, my Lawyer if you will." "When I stand before the Throne of God it will be Jesus Who will argue my case. Sin will try to condemn me, but Jesus will have covered me with His blood that He shed on the cross to redeem me from my sin. Because of that blood God will not even see my sin. Because of my Advocate, Who covered me with His blood, God will declare me no longer guilty and confirm that I was justified and redeemed by the Blood of Jesus."

The Pilgrims appreciated the new world in America for the freedom they were given to be free of persecution to worship as they pleased.

The American Forefathers appreciated the Christian foundations enough to include freedom of worship in the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers appreciated the Christian influence to credit God, not the government, with the "unalienable Rights" there were "endowed by their Creator," which included, "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

George Washington appreciated the Christian values and affirmed that a government could not exist without the Grace of God.

Generations of Christians have devoted themselves to the worship of God being protected with that freedom throughout their lives.

Abraham Lincoln is noted for his devotion to the Scriptures and the foundational belief in his faith. It was that faith that burned within his soul that led him to forge together a process to not just keep the country from splitting and abandoning Constitutional rule, but led him to setting free fellow human beings who were also created by God to enjoy the unalienable Rights afforded by the Constitution of a full complement of the United States.

Hundreds of thousands of Americans who have put on the uniform and marched off to war through the two and one/half centuries of America's history appreciate America, and the freedoms, including the freedom of worship, they fought and died for.

Even today, in the Twenty-First century, there continue to be millions of Americans who appreciate America as the "The Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave." There are, however, some breaks in that appreciation. There have been significant attacks on the foundational premise of America's experiment in Freedom based on Christian values and beliefs. There is renewed efforts by political standard bearers who wish to infiltrate ideologies from people who are diametrically opposed to Christian values, many of whom cross over America's borders without the proper papers, illegally, establishing their stay on the foundation of a fundamental change that even negates the Constitution. There is an ever-increasing number of people who are pushing the erroneous presumption that America is the cause of the failures of economies and societal structures in nations around the world.

Politically, there is a greater number of people who are turning their eyes toward a dependency on government, the practice of taking from the "wealthy" to redistribute to the "poor." The outreach of churches and religious organizations are increasingly withdrawing their responsibility of caring for the "widows and orphans," to relinquishing that task completely to the secular government. For sure, there are many Christian organizations and churches that have strong influence in their communities and provide much relief for those in need. But, by-and-large, the rank-and-file citizen in America has lost the foundational responsibility of "recognizing their neighbor, and filling an identified need."

Once again Americans have reached a crossroad of a decision that will require an informed choice. That choice is clear: Take the road of the past eight years that has brought us to this point, or choose an outsider whose style we know, but whose content is yet to be known. Neither of those two choices will produce the return of a Judeo-Christian recognition of governing; at least not to the complete satisfaction of the nation's Evangelicals. But the Trump organization, even if not completely known, will be a better chance to short-circuit the status quo of the past eight years. The Clinton organization will most likely continue with the current Administration's policies, even building on those policies to lead us further away from an America that most citizens have known in their lifetimes.

In the hands of a tyrannical organization what starts as good and
humanitarian often devolves into something that is restrictive,
repressive, cruel, and dangerous. Perhaps a person does not need to
take an "assault" weapon into a bar. That seems logical to help prevent
incidents that would end in death for some. The problem is not
carrying an assault weapon in a bar, however. The problem is finding a
solution to prevent some people with personalities and temperaments from
having a weapon in the first place. Most solutions that seem to place
restrictions on the Second Amendment seem to be applied to all persons
because it is too difficult to operate on an individualized basis.

I wonder if our Founders knew when they wrote into the Constitution the
freedom to own a weapon there were people right in their own
communities they personally wished would never own a gun? When the
Second Amendment was ratified with the other nine of the first ten on
December 15, 1791, became known as the "Bill of Rights," the young
nation was still wobbling from the Revolutionary experience. It was an
agricultural society where each family hunted for their food each day
and raised a garden to sustain the family during the year. When tyrants
threatened the people, they banded together to form a Militia to fight
off the tyrant. For a century after the ratification men carried guns,
especially as the West was being settled. It was essential for
self-protection, and the protection of one's family. The dual purpose
of having a gun was for sustenance to secure food and for protection.
Consequently, the gun was in demand, it was part of the Bill of Rights,
secured by the Nation's Constitution, and everyone understood it was a
right for everyone. It became a part of America's DNA that caused
people to rise up to protect those rights when challenged by any who
wanted to take those rights away.

At the same time, there were
gun manufactures who perfected the weapon. Muzzle loaders fell by the
wayside to the repeaters. Winchester, Colt, and others revolutionized
the stability and accuracy of the weapon. That research and development
produced highly functional weapons that were affordable and prolific.
Mass production flooded the society with a product they wanted and
needed. The military had the Gatling gun, developed in 1861. At 350 to
400 rounds per minute the Gatling gun became an "assault weapon" that
was far advanced from the single shot muzzle loader. Politicians has to
start thinking about the issue of citizens owning "guns" and what level
of gun they could own.

Suppose by July 4, 2076, 300 years after
the signing of the Declaration of Independence, a gun manufacturer has
invented for the military a pistol about the size of a .38 cal. special,
or a 9mm semi-automatic, a gun that would load a magazine of 10
cartridges, each with an atomic payload that would be equal to the
atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. Would such a gun, that could
be carried in a holster under one's arm, fall under the Rights of the
Second Amendment for any citizen to own? At some point we need to make
the decision that just because we have the right to do something doesn't
mean we should do it. Even though we have the right to have something,
doesn't mean we should have it. Having a gun is a right, but we all
know that in the hands of a killer gun becomes an instrument of
destruction that gives men like the one in Orlando, Florida a power he
should not have.

Congress just played a game of silliness
yesterday by playing with gun control bills they knew would never pass.
The politicians are not taking it seriously enough; they are putting up
legislation they know will not have a fighting chance. They must get
serious and find ways to make it difficult for a person who owns a gun
to use it for murder or any other criminal activity. They need to quit
allowing the lawyers and the judicial system to "make deals" that
nullify the deterrent effect of the punishment.

If a person kills
another person with a gun, and is convicted of murder through evidence
and judicial process, that person should never again be in a position to
use a gun to kill another human being. If that means life in prison
with no chance of ever getting out, then the price becomes a deterrent
for others to observe and place a restraint on their own personal
behavior. Gangs in the big cities, little cities, towns, and villages
should be arrested for using guns, unauthorized possession of guns, and
should be given long, non-plea bargain sentences that keep them off the
streets without any possibility of using a gun again.

Personal
responsibility must be brought back to the families, schools, churches,
universities, and all places in society where civility can be practiced
without the consequences of killings. Morality must be revered again,
sensibility must be brought back to the judicial system to consequate
gun violence with swift justice that prevents the person from going
through a system for years and then getting off on some technicality of a
finer point of some obscure law. The rights of victims and their
families should be as strongly held in the justice system as the person
who is charged with the crime.

Saturday, June 18, 2016

I had the good fortune to have my Dad around me throughout my entire young
life and even into adulthood. When he passed away all of my kids had already
been born, so he was able to see and know his grand children. That was also
true with my brother and sisters; they had all grown up and had children of
their own and Dad was able to see and know them all.I write that because I believe that is a blessing that many people are not
given. It was a blessing for him to live long enough to see his family
flourish; it was a blessing for us because we were able to learn valuable
lessons of life just from being around him. His was a generation that seems
decidedly different from the upcoming generation. There was glitziness in his
generation, of course, but I am not so sure it was as magnified and
self-centered as much as it seems to be today.Having lived through the "great depression" identified with the
crash of the stock market in 1929, Dad knew what it meant to "live by the
sweat of his brow" and work long, hard hours to provide for himself and
his family. His generation had been dealt a hand that really held no personal,
individual power that would result in vast winnings. His world was changing
fast through the industrial revolution, horseless buggy, flight through the
air, electricity, automation, explosion of energy through oil and the beginning
of modernization. Radio had come into its own, communication had shrunk the
world in a way that gave him more information more quickly than his Dad had
enjoyed. But just as he and millions of other Dads across the country had
managed to stand ready to take a toddling step, tragedy struck at Pearl Harbor.Uncle Sam made the call and tens of thousands of men just like my Dad ran to
get the job done that needed to be done. Later in our history, this generation
was to be called, "The Greatest Generation." I think those
"knock-out" years that leathered the skins of those men having survived
the depression and the World War created within them a sense of responsibility
that had its foundation firmly planted on honor, character, morality,
solidarity of trust and a sense of passing those values on to their children.
That is what I witnessed growing up under his tutelage.We were poor, but my Dad worked every day. His consistency was rock-solid,
always working, doing the job he had been trained to do and sticking with it to
complete a "career." From my earliest age I can remember being taught
the value of work. His advice: "Do not do just what is expected by your
boss, do much more than that and exceed your boss's expectation." He
thought that was the code to live and work by and it would always make things
better than what you expected. I believe it was good advice.Values that focused on family, spiritual matters, hard work, telling the
truth, holding fast to the principle of your word being your bond, trusting in
others to keep their word and helping others who had needs were presented every
day. I remember going with my brother and sisters door-to-door collecting small
bits of change from people for the "Milk and Ice" fund. We would turn
the money into those in charge to buy those commodities for poor people. Dad
and Mom always led the way to worship on Sunday morning (and in those days
Sunday and Wednesday nights too), never just sending us kids to Sunday School
by dropping us off at the door.My Dad was an average guy, worked all his life, lived through the depression
of the 1930's, fought in the World War II, raised a family, took care of his
elderly parents when the time came, and lived to see his grandchildren. He
never received any awards that I know of, he was never on television, he never
wrote a book, he was never elected to a high office, he never made enough money
to be termed as "wealthy" and he is not now mentioned in any history
books. All in all however, his was a life that showed humility, character, a
sense of justice, a positive regard for his neighbors, and a quiet
determination to make things better for his family and his fellow men. I
believe his is a life deserving of honor, and I do.

Friday, June 17, 2016

For all those people who are complaining that the President does not
have a strategy to keep America safe from terrorist attacks really
should keep in mind that he told us about his strategy in 2008 even
before he won the office. That strategy was to bring fundamental change
to America. He has kept his promise, it is just that so many people
who could not see it then, continue now not to see it. He actually did,
and does, have a strategy. For twenty years he sat at the feet
of Jeremiah Wright who told the future President, and the rest of us,
exactly what should happen to America. For as many years the
President-Elect in 2008 had studied his mentor and fellow "Community
Organizer" Saul Alinsky, the individual Hillary Clinton did her Master's
Thesis on. For the strategy in play simply read Alinsky's, "Rules for
Radicals." Remember?

Political correctness seems not only to be the strongest form of
denying the obvious, it is also diabolical in its cruelty to disguise
something very harmful by renaming it as something benign, then trying
to pass it off on the public as truth, all the while covering up the
evil it really is.

Nine/ElevenWhen we hear the words 9/11 mentioned it brings
memories of horror and death. Most of us can remember exactly where we
were and what we were doing that frightful morning of 9/11 when those
two airplanes crashed into the Twin Towers in New York City, another
into the Pentagon, and yet another that crashed in Pennsylvania having
been thwarted by brave people who overtook the hijackers who intended to
crash into another target. Even to this day we remember with saddened
hearts those whose lives were lost and the families, friends and
co-workers they left behind. What continues the tragedy was verifying
what we knew about the motivation behind the attack that rocked the
nation: that as a people we are hated by some people groups in the world
to such a degree that they want see us suffer and die.

Through the intense hatred and malice toward the people of the United
States from some radical groups we must continue to protect ourselves
against their wrath. Some people look out across the fields and see
nothing but turmoil and bitterness against their fellow human beings.
Some are even taught from an early age to hate, and even destroy others
who may not believe the same way, or who practice different customs as
they do.While reading through the letter to the Hebrews in the
Holy Bible one finds the total antithesis to the motivational hatred
that caused 9/11. Hebrews 9:11 states:“But now Christ has come
as the high priest of the good things to come. He passed through the
greater and more perfect tent not made with hands, that is, not of this
creation,” (Hebrews 9:11)Hebrews 9:11 is the beginning of the
balm of healing for America’s 9/11. Yes, Christ has come, and when He
came He came as the High Priest who would provide blessings upon all
those who accept Him for all time to come. He is not part of tents or
buildings or structures that are made by architects and builders and did
not provide healing through substitute means as others must do.But
Hebrews 9:11 intensifies the next part of the sentence at Hebrews 9:12
when it says,“…and he entered once for all into the most holy
place not by the blood of goats and calves but by his own blood, and so
he himself secured eternal redemption.” (Hebrews 9:12)Jesus the
Christ alone, no other person beyond Him, secured eternal redemption.
His accomplishment is all we need to satisfy our thirst for Him. It is
only through Him and His accomplishment that we can have any power to
conquer the hatred, bitterness, sin and death we face from those seeking
death and destruction. When they see that His Grace extends to all who
will accept Him as Lord and Savior, even to salvation, then peace will
come.America’s 9/11 was born through hatred and destruction; Hebrews 9:11 was created through love and redemption.Jim Killebrew

Thursday, June 16, 2016

Gun
control is now raising its head in the wake of the Orlando tragedy.A couple of years ago I was watching The Five
at Five on Fox News and they were talking about the gun control issue.
One of the co-hosts said it was going to be difficult to initiate a gun ban because
of the gangs in large cities and other people who do not obey the laws will
keep their guns. The Democrat member to The Five, Bob Beckel, spoke up
and said, "That's no problem, just confiscate the guns."

That
word "confiscate" or "confiscation" seems to be voiced a
bit more often among the Democrat top-ranked officials, especially when they
are filibustering for gun control.Even
the President has made a statements about "using other means" within
his executive powers to act if Congress doesn't. Of course for many
people that word translates into action brings mortified fears. In fact
it seems far-reaching in that it would result in placing restrictions on
several rights we now have associated with freedoms regarding ownership and
privacy and due process.

At
first glance and on face value we might immediately agree that if bad guys have
guns and are using them to kill, rob or intimidate people we want the police to
confiscate those guns so law-abiding people can be protected. The truth
is, however, confiscation is the tool of tyrants, not the practice of a nation
of laws under the Constitution.Fortunately,
there is a process the police must
follow that has important steps to be satisfied before that confiscation can
occur.

A
law enforcement person cannot indiscriminately just decide to go confiscate
someone's gun from their house. There must be probable cause that a crime
has been committed or is imminently about to be committed. It might even
be a crime has already been committed and the investigation is taking the
investigators to a specific person. That probable cause must be strong
enough to specifically name the individual and demonstrate that the crime is
linked to that individual. Law enforcement must then seek out a court to
present the probable cause information so a search warrant can be issued by a
judge. It is on the basis of that warrant that a search can be conducted to
the individual's property. Seizure of property generally needs to be
named in the warrant so the law enforcement officers cannot seize just anything
they see that may not be relevant to the purported crime that initiated
the probable cause.

So
when the talking points of any political party or Administration includes a
process of simply confiscating the guns they must realize the process to do
that will likely obliterate not only the Second Amendment but the Fourth
Amendment of the United States Constitution regarding privacy, search and
seizure and court issued warrants to conduct such searches and seizures.
Once the can of Constitutional obliteration is opened, whether through
Congressional actions or Executive Orders, it opens the door for many of the Constitutional
guarantees to be thrown out as well. If we are not careful we could end
up living in a totalitarian state with no regard for individual rights to
ownership, privacy or freedom, and of course no due process.

Politicians are not the only
people who are wondering about gun ownership.There are many people who the question, "Why own a gun in the first
place, especially if you don't plan to use it as intended?"Of course, the intended use of the type of
guns many are discussing are those "long rifles" or "automatic
firing guns."

One has to wonder however, if
any law-abiding citizen actually ever wants to be in a situation where he will
have to use a gun for the use it was intended.Some believe the intended use of the gun is for protection.Protection against harm, the kind of harm we
have just experienced in Orlando.No
person wants to be in that situation where there is a real need for
self-protection.In those instances, the
presence of a gun in the right hands places the role of a gun in the position
of being an equalizer.By that I mean
there are two persons present, one is in the process of killing another; the
other is in need of protection.When the
other person also has a gun, that gun puts the two on a more equal footing.One trying to kill; the other trying to
defend.Part of the defense of self and
others present is neutralizing the person with a gun who is trying to kill
people.

What prompted the writers of
our Constitution to include weapons in the Second Amendment was the fear they
had just experienced by living through the Revolutionary War protecting
themselves against a greater power who had weapons.The inclusion of the Second Amendment was
motivated by fear.That fear was
citizens having to endure the same fate as the writers might have suffered had
they not been armed.

That fear (or respect, if
you will) has followed like a thread from then until now.People are afraid today because they can see
in some cases what the Forefathers warned about then seems to be happening
today.People are watching the President
and a large group in his political party constantly calling for the control of
the guns every time some mass killing takes place.That seems to be the first response:People die in mass shootings; therefore, all
the guns have to be removed from the people.That makes people afraid.

That fear is not just
imagined, it is real.Our government
would remove all guns from law-abiding citizens, barely even touching those who
have no problems with practicing illegal behavior.Fear of having ones' gun confiscated is an
emotional contagion phenomenon that triggers related emotions in others when
they are confronted with the prospect of being in a life-threatening situation
where they must protect themselves but have no means to do so.That fear has been reinforced many times by
an Administration and an ideology of liberalism that promises to remove the
Second Amendment at the first real chance they have.The cascading effect of abolishing the Second
Amendment would naturally move toward removing a cadre of other rights as well;
privacy, due process, warrants, and perhaps even Habeas Corpus.

That
is why people want to own a gun.Aside
from hunting for food or sport, other reasons are simply fluff.

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Okay, here's the deal.I may be wrong; if I am, someone will correct
me.

I have been thinking of what it
means to place the adjective "good" in front of certain words to
describe quality.The definition of good
(from Encarta Dictionary: English (North America)) denotes, "of high
quality or standard, either on an absolute scale or in relation to another or
others."

So if we say a student is a
"good" student, we have to look at the standard by which that student
is measured.Presumably, the standards
by which a student must live is usually attending classes, doing the work
assigned, making a good grade on any exams given, doing the required, assigned
papers and making a good grade, maintaining good conduct in class and on
campus, fulfilling all the requirements in an exemplary way, and keeping an
excellent attitude that represents the values of the school.All of this, and even more, that would cause
many in the school to value the student as having done all with "high
quality."

Okay, what about an employee?If we designate an employee as a "good
employee," we would expect that he is always prompt, gets to work on time,
leaves only after quitting time, produces excellent job, receives evaluations
that are well above average, even outstanding, or excellent, works well with
others, supports the vision and mission of the employer, consistently produces
outstanding services or products, and never abuses time off benefits.

What about a "good
leader?"We would assume the
individual knows the job inside and out, motivates the followers to give their
best, is always out front showing the way, being a mentor, accepting only the best
quality of service or material while producing the same as an example for all
his team, being very supportive of each team member and leading each to
excellence in every instance and circumstance.

Keep in mind that each one of these
require the individual to produce the highest quality of services in whatever
job or situation in which the person finds himself.The standards are set, the individual knows
the standards, internalizes those standards, follows the leaders above him,
demonstrates excellent motivation to complete all aspects of the standards, and
delivers the highest quality of services or products in line with the vision,
mission, goals, and objectives of the organization in which that
"good" person belongs.

So we all know there are judgments
made as each person in any organization have their personal actions relative to
the organization's standards measured against those standards.Each owner, CEO, middle leadership, or
supervisor measures or is measured against the standards of performance set by
the organization.In that measurement, a
judgment is made regarding the performance of consistency and correlation to
the organization's standards.In that
process any organization generally ends up with a profile of designations that
form a continuum of performance.In
fact, in some organizations that operate on merit, even the pay salaries based
on the quality of performance.It is
rare that everyone would be rated, "good."Some may even be rated "average,"
while others may even be rated "poor."

Remember, we operate under laws,
regulations, policies, rules, understandings, operational guidelines,
accreditation standards, maybe even a handshake.Each organization makes their standards known
in some way.They publish them, recite
them, or even put them in videos, DVDs, or other forms of material so they can
be reviewed and maintained.The
organization usually provides some sort of training, be it an academy, a formal
course, posting training classes, on-the-job-training, on-line, or simply
reading assignments.Having completed
the training, there is usually a criterion established for each learning
objective to measure the individual's knowledge or behavior against.Experience begins for each person and
continued assessment and evaluation is completed at milestones, intervals, or
perhaps even randomly throughout the person's career.

All of these processes are familiar
to most people regarding students, leaders, and employees.There is another part of life, however, that
affects most every person in regard to lifestyle.Just to keep it simple, let's not use other
cultures, but stick with the American culture for which most in the United
States are familiar.Let's look at
faith, personal faith.Faith is faith,
whether it is Jewish faith, Muslim faith, Christian faith, or any breakdown of
specific sects within any of those faiths.Does the same process apply regarding the nomenclature of a person's
faith regarding being a "good" Jew, a "good" Muslim, or a
"good" Christian?

A Jewish person will study his
"Holy" book, the Talmud, the Old Testament, especially the
Pentateuch.The Muslim studies the
Koran, which Muslims believe is the sacred text of Islam, and records the
revelations of God to Muhammad.A
Christian claims the Holy Scriptures which include both the Old Testament and
the New Testament and places his faith in Jesus, the Son of God as his eternal
salvation.

Each of those sacred books offer to
each of the persons in those respective faiths a "standard" by which
the individual is measured relative to the degree to which the person may be
known as "orthodox" in their faith.Again, the degree to which the individual in each faith actually
practices the "standards" in each sacred book determines the
"goodness" or otherwise relative to that individual's actual faith.

To determine the level of
"good" for each person in each faith, the individual demonstrates his
or her own commitment of belief and action in regard to each of the tenants of
faith in each standard within each of the respective sacred books.Therefore, to the highest degree to which a
person adheres to each of the standards determines the degree of quality the
person reaches in his or her devotion to the standards.If the following of the standards are
adamantly "religious" producing "high quality" of belief,
or faith, the person is said to be a "good Jew" or a "good
Muslim" or a "good Christian."

There is a difference, however, in
this trichotomy.As stated above,
usually the standard by which a person is deemed "good" is following
the rules of the standards which are presumed to be good and righteousness in
and of themselves.Within the culture of
the United States those standards are related to the "good of
mankind" and useful in producing results and outcomes that are considered
the best for the welfare of all of our fellow humans.Standards for making automobiles produce the
best car or truck for the protection of all owners.The standards for education seek to make the
best citizen a person can be; well educated, highly qualified, knowledgeable, and
intelligent.Likewise for leaders; the
standards are of the highest standards that usually point to effective,
functional, and solid leadership skills.

The same is true for the matters of
faith.The Jewish faith lives by the Ten
Commandments, having One God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.The Christian faith takes the standards from
the Holy Bible and the teachings of Jesus, along with the love and acceptance
that God, through Jesus offers.So, when
a person learns, practices, and lives by those standards they are said to be
"good" Jews or "good" Christians.

That breaks down when it comes to
the Muslim faith.That is true because
there seems to be two standards the Muslim followers may choose to take.It appears that the Koran has two different
standards that a person who wants to be a Muslim has to choose to follow.One portion of the sacred writings point a
person to a Religion of Peace, where the Muslim of that sect will coexist with
others who are not of the Muslim faith.The second portion of the sacred writings seem to point to actions a
person must take that includes enslaving women, raping children by forcing
marriage at even a prepubescent age, identifying those who will not believe as
that subset does as infidels, with the permission from the sacred writings to
actually kill those who are infidels.

Which portion of the Muslim
population may be described as "good" Muslims?If the portion of the Koran that points to
stoning people, cutting off the heads of women because they talk to a man who
is not their husband, and waging jihad against the infidels, killing people for
failing to change their beliefs to join the Muslim faith, can this portion be
called "good" when measured against the Koran.Actually, the answer is "Yes" ONLY
when measured against the Koran.It is "good"
because the person who is placing his faith in that sacred writing actually
believes that with all his heart, accepts it, internalizes it, builds a
lifestyle around it, that person is doing what the Koran is telling him to do.As with all the other tests of faith, that
makes this action pronounced as "good" for that person.This is true in much the same way as a Klan
member can be called a "good" Klan member only within the context of the
collective membership of the Klan.

Conversely, if the sect of Muslim
who does not follow the Koran completely, and fails to actively submit to its
teachings that command the atrocities of killing people, raping children, and
all the rest, that person cannot be deemed a "good" Muslim because he
is unfaithful to his own sacred writings.Within the collective membership of the Muslim faith, that person is
considered just another "infidel."All of the judgments reserved for infidels are carried out for that
person as well.

The problem is the
inter-connectednessthat position offers
when it is measured against the collective standards of human nature in the
rest of the culture.Enslaving women, raping
children, killing infidels, stoning women who talk to other men, systematically
killing identified groups of people in the society does not mix well with being
anything "good."Therefore,
when we hear the President and other left-wing liberals talking about the
"good" Muslims, which person in the Muslim faith is he talking about?